T C 669R THE 2015 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITIONmoot.in/moot1/case_documents/17/R2.pdf · -memorial for the respondent- team code: 669r the 2015 philip

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT-

TEAM CODE: 669R

THE 2015 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT

THE PEACE PALACE, HAGUE

CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND ANNEXATION OF EAST AGNOSTICA

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA

(APPLICANT)

V.

STATE OF REVERENTIA

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

-STATE OF REVERENTIA-

-PRELIMINARIES-

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................................. xii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................................................................................... xiii

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... xiv

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .................................................................................................. xviii

PLEADINGS ................................................................................................................................ 1

I. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IN EAST AGNOSTICA IS

CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. ............................................................................. 1

A. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION OR

INTERVENTION IN THE AFFAIRS OF AGNOSTICA. .................................................................. 1

1. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF

AGGRESSION. ............................................................................................................. 1

2. REVERENTIA REFRAINED FROM ANY FORM OF COERCION AIMED AGAINST THE

POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE OR TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA. ..................... 2

B. THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA IS LIMITED BY THE RIGHT OF SELF-

DETERMINATION AND AGNOSTICA FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY IN

CONFORMITY WITH THIS RIGHT. ............................................................................................ 3

1. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION IS A PEREMPTORY NORM OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW POSSESSING AN ERGA-OMNES CHARACTER. ......................................................... 3

2. AGNOSTICA FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY IN CONFORMITY WITH

SELF-DETERMINATION. .............................................................................................. 5

C. THE FAILURE OF AGNOSTICA IN RESPECTING THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF AGNOREVS

OBLIGATED REVERENTIA TO SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM IN EAST AGNOSTICA. ............... 5

1. INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNISES A RIGHT TO EXTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION OF

AGNOREVS. ............................................................................................................... 5

2. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT TO THE REFERENDUM WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE RIGHT

OF EXTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION OF AGNOREVS. .................................................. 6

-PRELIMINARIES-

ii

II. EAST AGNOSTICA’S SECESSION FROM AGNOSTICA AND INTEGRATION INTO

REVERENTIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND IN ANY EVENT, THIS

COURT SHOULD NOT ORDER THE RETROCESSION OF EAST AGNOSTICA TO AGNOSTICA

AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF ITS POPULATION. ........................................................... 9

A. AGNOREVS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. .................................................... 9

1. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IS AVAILABLE TO PEOPLES SUFFERING

SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION. .......................................................................................... 9

2. AGNOREVS QUALIFY AS A “PEOPLE” UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. ....................... 10

3. AGNOREVS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXTERNAL SELF-DETERMINATION. .......................... 12

B. EAST AGNOSTICA’S INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN CONSISTENCE WITH

INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH IS NEUTRAL TOWARDS SECESSION. ...................................... 14

1. THE SECESSION OF EAST AGNOSTICA WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-

DETERMINATION. ..................................................................................................... 14

2. STATE PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL OPINIONS SUPPORT A RIGHT TO EXTERNAL SELF-

DETERMINATION OF AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE. ............................................................. 17

C. EAST AGNOSTICA HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS A STATE. ............................................ 19

1. EAST AGNOSTICA HAS A PERMANENT POPULATION. ............................................ 20

2. EAST AGNOSTICA CONSTITUTES A ‘STATE’ AS IT HAS A DEFINED TERRITORY. ....... 21

3. EAST AGNOSTICA CONSTITUTES A ‘STATE’ AS IT HAS A GOVERNMENT HAVING

EFFECTIVE CONTROL. ....................................................................................................... 21

4. EAST AGNOSTICA QUALIFIES A A ‘STATE’ AS IT HAS THE CAPACITY TO ENGAGE IN

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENTER INTO TREATIES. .................................................. 21

III. THE MARTHITE CONVENTION WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL 1 MARCH 2013, AND

AGNOSTICA BREACHED THAT CONVENTION. ................................................................ 24

A.AGNOSTICA’S UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THE MARTHITE CONVENTION IS

INVALID. ..................................................................................................................... 24

1. AGNOSTICA’S UNILATERAL TERMINATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ACCORDING TO THE

DOCTRINE OF ERROR. .............................................................................................. 24

-PRELIMINARIES-

iii

2. AGNOSTICA’S UNILATERAL TERMINATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ACCORDING TO THE

DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ................................... 26

B. AGNOSTICA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS BY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL. ................................................................................................... 29

1. AGNOSTICA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE V.C.L.T. ............................ 29

2. AGNOSTICA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE MARTHITE CONVENTION. ... 30

IV. REVERENTIA’S REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE IN THE MARTHITE EXTRACTION

FACILITIES WAS CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW...........................................31

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ................................................................................................... 37

-PRELIMINARIES-

iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force on Oct. 21, 1986, 567

U.N.T.S. 435 .......................................................................................................................... 9

Charter of the United Nations, entered into force on 24th Oct 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119 ........... 2

Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on 26th Dec., 1933, 165

U.N.T.S. 19 .......................................................................................................................... 19

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on 16th December

1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407 ........................................................................................................ 3

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force on Jan. 3,

1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 ............................................................................................................. 9

The Marthite Convention, entered into force on 14th April, 1938, Compromis (Annex)

................................................................................................................ ..............24, 25,28,30

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S.

331................................................................................................................................ 4,24,33

UNITED NATIONS, DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

A. Cristescu, The Right to Self-Determination, Historical and Current Development on the

basis of United Nations Instruments, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev.1, 26, (1981) ...... 13

Crawford, Response to Experts Reports of the Amicus Curiae, 159-160, Thomas M. Franck,

Opinion Directed at Question 2 of the Reference, 78, Alain Pellet, Legal Opinion on

Certain Questions of International Law Raised by the Reference, 122, Malcolm Shaw, Re:

Order in Council PC 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996, 136. ............................................. 15

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-

operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.

2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) ................................................................................ 2

Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res.

50/6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/50/6 (1995) ...................................................................................... 9

Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974) ............ 1

ECOSOC Res. 1503(XLVIII), U.N. Doc. E/4832/Add.1, ¶ 1 (1970) ....................................... 7

General Comment 8, The Relationship between Economic Sanctions and Respect for

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1997/8 (1997) .......................... 35

-PRELIMINARIES-

v

I.L.C. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, GA U.N.

Doc. A/56/10 (2001) ............................................................................................................ 31

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Co-

operation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug. 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292........................... 9

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, The Charter of for a New Europe, 31

I.L.M. (1991) 193................................................................................................................. 10

Question of Namibia, UNGA Res. 2518 (XXIV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2518 (1969) ................ 16

Question of Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2383 (XXIII), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2382 (1968) ............... 16

Question of Southern Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2151 (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2151 (1966) .. 16

Question of Southern Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2508 (XXIV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2508/ (1969)

.............................................................................................................................................. 16

Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 140 (1963) .......................................................... 28

Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 86 (1966) ............................................................ 27

Situation in South Africa, UNGA Res. 34/93 (1979) .............................................................. 16

U.N. Doc. A/RES/34/93 (1979) ............................................................................................... 16

UNESCO, Final Report and Recommendations, International Meeting of Experts on Further

Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples, 22 Feb, 1990, U.N. Doc. SHS-

89/CONF.602/7, 22 (1990) .................................................................................................. 10

United Nations, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted

by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, 15 Aug, 1997, UN doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3, 13, ¶1-2 and

6 (1997). ............................................................................................................................... 12

UNSC Res. 787 (1992), U.N. Doc. S/RES/799 (1992) .......................................................... 16

UNSC Res. 217(1965), U.N. Doc. S/RES/217 (1965) ............................................................ 16

UNSC Res. 277(1970), U.N. Doc. S/RES/277 (1970) ............................................................ 16

UNSC Res. 402 (1976), U.N. Doc. S/RES/402 (1976) ........................................................... 16




UNSC Res. 828/1993, U.N. Doc. S/RES/828 (1993) .............................................................. 17

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993) ................ 5

Written Statement of Albania, Apr. 14, 2009, 79 .................................................................... 13

Written Statement of Denmark, Apr. 16, 2009, 14 .................................................................. 13

Written Statement of Finland, Apr. 16, 2009, 10 ..................................................................... 13

Written Statement of Germany, Apr. 15, 2009, 34 .................................................................. 13

-PRELIMINARIES-

vi

Written Statement of Japan, Apr. 17, 2009, 4 .......................................................................... 13

Written Statement of Netherlands, Apr. 17, 2009, 13 ............................................................. 13

Written Statement of Poland, Apr. 15, 2009, 26 ...................................................................... 13

Written Statement of Russia, Apr. 16, 2009, 34 ...................................................................... 13

Written Statement of Slovenia, Apr. 17, 2009, 3 ..................................................................... 13

Written Statement of U.S.A, Apr. 17, 2009, 39 ....................................................................... 13

Written Statement of United Kingdom, Apr. 17, 2009 ............................................................ 13

Written Statements of Ireland, Apr. 17, 2009, 9 ...................................................................... 13

Written Statements of Switzerland, Apr. 15, 2009, 26, ........................................................... 13

I.C.J. CASES

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect

of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22) (Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade) ..................... 10

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.) 1951 I.C.J. 117, 132 (Jan. 18) .................... 28

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 32 (Feb. 5) .... 4

Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 6

.............................................................................................................................................. 21

Case of Pulp Mills on River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr. 20) ........ 36

East Timor (Port. v. Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 90, 102 (June 30) .................................................... 4,10

Gabčĭkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9) ................................. 28

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South

West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16

(June 21)............................................................................................................................... 10

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

2004 I.C.J. 136, 171-2 (July 9) .............................................................................................. 4

Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8). .......................... 2

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14

(June 27)............................................................................................................................... 31

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14,

351 (June 27) (Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel) ...................................................... 3,31

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Denmark, F.R.G. v. Netherlands), 1969 I.C.J.

3, 26, 32 (Feb. 20) ................................................................................................................ 21

United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16)

.............................................................................................................................................. 36

-PRELIMINARIES-

vii

Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16) ................................................................................ 10

P.C.I.J. CASES

Factory Case (Germany v. Poland) 1927 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A) No. 9 (Sept. 13) ............................ 36

Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 46 (Aug. 19)

.............................................................................................................................................. 26

Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig

Territory case 1932 P.C.I.J. 3 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4) .................................................... 32

U.N.R.I.A.A. & MISCELLANEOUS CASES

Appellate Body Report, Mexico–Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages,

WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, (Mar. 24, 2006). ............................................................... 35

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22,

Award (24 July 2008) .......................................................................................................... 36

Case Concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 (Fr. v. U.S.A.) 1978, 18

R.I.A.A. 416 ......................................................................................................................... 31

CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 (25 Sep

2007) .................................................................................................................................... 36

Conference on Yugoslavia, 1991, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 1, 92 I.L.R. 162

(Nov. 29) .............................................................................................................................. 19

Cyprus v. Turkey, 1975 E.C.H.R., 18 E.C.H.R. Yearbook, 82, 112-116 (1975) (May 26) .... 19

Cysne Case (Port. v. Germ.) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1052................................................................ 32

Deutsche Continental Gas Gesellschaft v. Polish State, German-Polish Mixed Arbitral

Tribunal, 1929, 5 I.L.R. 11, 13 (Aug. 1) .............................................................................. 19

Kevin Mgwanga Gunme v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 266/2003, 2009 A.C.H.P.R., 26 Ann.

Activity Rep. (2008-09) .................................................................................................. 11,18

Legal Consequences, supra note 16; Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, Comm No.

75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R, (2000) A.H.R.L.R. 72 ............................................... 10,11,12,13,18

M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) 1988 I.T.L.O.S. Reports 24

(March 11) ........................................................................................................................... 36

Naulilaa Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1025 ....................................... 32

Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217, 285 (1998) (Can.) . 10,12,13,15,18,22

-PRELIMINARIES-

viii

S. v. Banda and Others, Supreme Court of Bophuthatswana, 1989, 4 South African Law

Reports 519 (BG), 531-539 (1989) (Feb. 6). ....................................................................... 19

Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v. Sudan,

Comm. No. 279/03-296/05, 2009 A.C.H.P.R., 28 Ann. Activity Rep. (2009-10) .............. 11

The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by

the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106 ............................ 18

BOOKS

A. BUCHANAN, JUSTICE, LEGITIMACY, AND SELF-DETERMINATION: MORAL FOUNDATIONS

FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW, 357-359 (2007) ................................................................ 12

AKEHURST, AKEHURST'S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (PETER

MALANCZUK ED., 7TH ED. 1997). ............................................................................ 1, 20

AKEHURST, AKEHURST'S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 75 (1997) ... 20

ANTONIO CASSESE, SELF DETERMINATION OF PEOPLE: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL 133-136

(1995) .......................................................................................................................... 4

BROWNLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND USE OF FORCE BY STATES 361 (1963) ................... 1

BRUNNO SIMMA, CHARTER OF UNITED NATIONS, A COMMENTARY 316 (2012) ............ 4,11

CAHEIR, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERTO AGO 163 (1987) ............................................ 24

CHESNCY HILL, THE DOCTRINE OF REBUS SIC STANTIBUS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, (1934)

................................................................................................................................... 27

CRAWFORD, THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 119 (2006) ................... 13

D. ALLAND, JUSTICE PRIVEE ET ORDRE JURIDIQUE INTERNATIONAL: ETUDE THEORIQUE

DES CONTRE-MESURES EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC (1994) ............................. 31

D. RAIC, STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 218-219 (2002) ................. 4

E. DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF PRINCIPLES, OR THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF NATURE 342

(1844) ........................................................................................................................ 31

E. ZOLLER, PEACETIME UNILATERAL REMEDIES: AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTERMEASURES

179–189 (1984) .......................................................................................................... 31

H. HANNUM, AUTONOMY, SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION: THE

ACCOMMODATION OF CONFLICTING RIGHTS 471 (1990) .............................................. 13

HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 429 (1943) ........................................... 26

I. BROWNLIE AND G. GOODWIN-GILL, BASIC DOCUMENTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 866 (2006)

................................................................................................................................... 10

-PRELIMINARIES-

ix

I. BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 513 (1991) ............................ 4

J.B SCOTT, THE HAGUE COURT REPORTS 317-318 (1916) ............................................... 30

J.L. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS 256 (1955) ............................................................ 25

JORRI DUURSMA, FRAGMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MICRO-STATES

116 (1996) .................................................................................................................. 21

L. BUCHHEIT, SECESSION: THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF DETERMINATION, 92-97 (1978) 12,13

L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 209 (1955) ........................................................... 20

L.-A. SICILIANOS, LES REACTIONS DECENTRALISEES A L’ILLICITE: DES CONTRE-MESURES

A LA LEGITIME DEFENSE 501–525 (1990) ................................................................... 31

L.C. GREEN, INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH THE CASES, 764 (1959) ............................ 27

LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 91 (1947) ................................... 20

LORD MCNAIR, LAW OF TREATIES 405-8 (1961) ............................................................. 25

O DÖRR AND K SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A

COMMENTARY 544 (2012) .......................................................................................... 29

O. Y. ELAGAB, THE LEGALITY OF NON-FORCIBLE COUNTER-MEASURES IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW 227–241 (1988) ........................................................................ 31

P. DAILLIER, A. PELLET, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC, 526 (2002) ............................. 15

SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 192 (1984) ................. 24

ARTICLES & COMMENTARIES

A. E. Boyle, The G/N Case: New Law in Old Bottles, Symposium: The Case Concerning the

G/N Project, 8 Y.B.I.E.L. 13 (1997) .................................................................................... 26

C. Tomuschat, Self- Determination in a Post-Colonial World, Modern Law of Self

Determination, 8-11 (1993) ................................................................................................. 12

Cannizzaro, Enzo, The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures,

Eur. J. Int'l L. 889 (2001) ..................................................................................................... 34

Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-determination, in Secession: International Law

Perspectives 40 (2006) ................................................................................................... 5,7,12

Daniel Thurer and Thomas Burri, Secession, 9 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International

Law 55 (2012) ...................................................................................................................... 13

European Community, The E.C. Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern

Europe and the Soviet Union and the E.C. Declaration on Yugoslavia 62 B.Y.I.L. 559 .... 10

-PRELIMINARIES-

x

F.L. Kirgis Jr., The Degrees of Self-Determination in the United Nations Era, 88 A.J.I.L. 304,

305-306 (1994)..................................................................................................................... 13

G. Abi Saab, Conclusion, in Secession: International Law Perspectives 474 (2006) ............. 15

G. Marston, Termination of Trusteeship, 18 Int’l. Comp. L.Q. 1, 3 (1969) ............................ 20

Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Fourth Report On State Responsibility, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N 1

(1992) Document A/CN/4/444 ............................................................................................ 33

H. Gros Espiell, Self-Determination and Jus Cogens, UN Law/Fundamental Rights 167-73

(1978) ..................................................................................................................................... 4

International Commission of Jurists, The Events in East Pakistan, 8 International

Commission of Jurists Review 23, 70 (1972) ...................................................................... 11

James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69

B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998) .......................................................................................................... 12

James Crawford, The Rights of Peoples: Some Conclusions, Rights of People, 166 ................ 4

John Dugard and David Raic, Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession, in

Secession: International Law Perspectives, 103, 106 (2006) ................................. 5,10,12,17

John Fischer Williams, The Permanence of Treaties Source, 22 AM. J. INT’L L. 1, 89 (1978)

.............................................................................................................................................. 30

K. Doehring, Self-Determination, in The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary 57

(2002) ................................................................................................................................... 12

M. Higgins, International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes

230 RECUEIL DES COURS 165 (1991) .................................................................................. 15

O.C. Okafor, Entitlement, Process, and Legitimacy in the Emergent International Law of

Secession, 9 Int’l. J. Minority & Group Rights 41, 45-46 (2002)........................................ 15

R. Ago, Le délit international, 68 RECUEIL DES COURS 415 (1947) ...................................... 31

R. Erich, La naissance et la reconnaissance des Etats, 13 RECUEIL DES COURS 427, 442

(1926) ................................................................................................................................... 20

R. McCorquodale, Self-determination: A Human Rights Approach, 43, Int’l. Comp. L.Q. 241

(1994) ................................................................................................................................... 13

S.A. Tiewul, The Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases (1973) and the Ghost of rebus sic stantibus, 6

N.Y.U. J.Int’l. L. Pol’y 554-556 (1973) .............................................................................. 29

S.R. Chowdhary, The Status and Norms of Self-determination in Contemporary International

Law, 24 Essays on International Law and Relations in Honour of A.J.P. Tommes 72, 80

(1977) ................................................................................................................................... 13

Sir Humphrey Waldock, Second Report on Law of Treaties, Y.I.L.C 84 (1963) .................... 27

-PRELIMINARIES-

xi

T. Franck, Opinion directed at Question 2 of the Reference, Self Determination, in

International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned 78 (2000) ............................................... 15

Thomas D. Musgrave, Self Determination and National Minorities, in Oxford Monographs in

International Law 76 (1997) ................................................................................................ 12

Thomas M. Franck, Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secede, in People and Minorities

13-14 (1993)......................................................................................................................... 12

U.K. and Argentina's Statements in the Context of the Falklands/Malvinas Dispute 53

B.Y.B.I.L. 366-379 (1982)..................................................................................................... 4

William Riphagen, The Sixth Report of the Special Rapporteur on State responsibility, Art. 8

of Part Two of the Draft Articles, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N 10 (1985) Document A/

CN.4/389 ......................................................................................................................... 32,34

William W. Bishop, Jr., The Permanence of Treaties, 22 AM. J. INT’L L 89, 102 (1928) ..... 26

Y. Dinstein, Collective Human Rights of Peoples and Minorities, 25 Int’l. Comp. L.Q. 102,

108 (1976) ............................................................................................................................ 13

-PRELIMINARIES-

xii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to the Joint Notification and the Compromis concluded on 2nd September 2014,

agreed to therein, between the Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of

Reverentia (Respondent) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Parties’), and in accordance with

Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Parties hereby submit to

this Court its dispute Concerning the Secession and Annexation of East Agnostica. In

accordance with Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute and Article 5(a) of the Compromis, each

party will accept the judgement of the Court as final and binding. In accordance with Article

3 of the Compromis, the Court is hereby requested to adjudge the dispute.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xiii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. WHETHER REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IN EAST AGNOSTICA IS

CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

II. WHETHER EAST AGNOSTICA’S SECESSION FROM AGNOSTICA AND INTEGRATION

INTO REVERENTIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WHETHER THE

COURT SHOULD ORDER THE RETROCESSION OF EAST AGNOSTICA TO AGNOSTICA

AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF ITS POPULATION.

III. WHETHER THE MARTHITE CONVENTION WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL MARCH 1, 2013 AND

WHETHER AGNOSTICA BREACHED THAT CONVENTION.

IV. WHETHER REVERENTIA’S REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE IN THE MARTHITE

EXTRACTION FACILITIES WAS CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xiv

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Kingdom of Credera, conquered the Thanatosian Plains and incorporated the

region into its global empire as two separately-administered colonies, Reverentia and

Agnostica. The Crederan authorities demarcated the two territories based upon their

observations of linguistic, cultural, and religious differences between their respective

inhabitants. The colony of Reverentia was located in the eastern half of the Thanatosian

Plains. The colony of Agnostica was located in the western half of the Thanatosian

Reverentia functioned as a manufacturing and urban trading centre. A large number of ethnic

Reverentians migrated to Agnostica, settling in East Agnostica and are known as Agnorevs.

Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of Reverentia (Respondent) were

established on 1 August 1925.

-The Marthite Convention-

2. Within the territory of East Agnostica were the only areas in the world that contain

deposits of Marthite, a naturally-occurring mineral salt which was known to possess mildly

restorative properties Marthite has always been a core ingredient in Reverentian traditional

medicine but is virtually unknown outside the Thanatosian Plains.

On 14 April 1938, Agnostica and Reverentia concluded a bilateral treaty, called “The

Marthite Convention. The facilities in East Agnostica produced between 200 and 250 tonnes

of Marthite per year, and the Reverentian Marthite Trust (RMT) sold the entire output to

traditional medicine practitioners in Reverentia and East Agnostica. In late 2011 it was found

that high doses of Marthite were over 90% effective in treating a broad range of previously

untreatable infant and early-childhood autoimmune disorders. RMT shifted its focus to the

international market, selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to

pharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under

the Marthite Convention.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xv

3. On 1st February 2012, Agnostican Prime Minister Maxine Moritz contacted the

President of Reverentia, Antonis Nuvallus, proposing to terminate the Marthite Convention

by mutual consent. The President of Reverentia did not agree to terminate the treaty. On 2nd

April 2012, Agnostica declared the 1938 Marthite Convention to be terminated and without

further effect. The Prime Minister also disclosed that Agnostica had agreed, once it was no

longer subject to the Convention, to lease all rights to the existing East Agnostican Marthite

facilities to Baxter Enterprises, Ltd. (“Baxter”). Following this, all the Reverentian Engineers

engaged at the facility were called back.

-Turmoil in East Agnostica-

4. On 1st October 2012, the Agnostican Parliament passed the Marthite Control Act

(MCA), under which an Agnostican citizen possessing Marthite without a Government

license would be subject to a mandatory prison term of from 18 months to four years. On 23rd

November 2012, Gohandas Sugdy, a 19-year-old Agnorev miner, was found to be in

possession of two pocketfuls of Marthite, and was arrested and charged under the MCA. He

wanted the Marthite for his sick grandfather and later on committed suicide in prison cell

when he was unable to do so.

Hailing Mr. Sugdy as a martyr to the Reverentian cause, the leading East Agnostican

newspaper denounced the Marthite ban as “denying Reverentians in Agnostica the fruits of

our own labour, the product of our own lands, and the lifeblood of our ancient traditions.”

Through the remainder of 2012, demonstrations across East Agnostica increased in number,

frequency, and intensity.

5. On 2nd January 2013, with clashes between the authorities and protesters continuing,

Mr. Bien, the Agnorev head of the East Agnostican, proposed a resolution before the

Agnostican Parliament, calling upon the Prime Minister “to de-escalate” the police and

-PRELIMINARIES-

xvi

military presence in East Agnostica. On 5 January 2013, Mr. Bien presented a resolution to

the Agnostican Parliament proposing the dissolution of the nation. This resolution was

defeated.

-Referendum on the question of secession-

6. On 10th January 2013, the Reverentian Parliament adopted a resolution titled “On the

Crisis in East Agnostic” which dealt with the secession of East Agnostica from Agnostica.

The East Agnostican provincial parliament voted on 16 January 2013 to schedule a plebiscite

“open to all Agnostican citizens resident in East Agnostica” on the question of secession. On

29 January 2013, the plebiscite was held, and 73 percent of voters cast their ballots in favour

of secession. The next day, the members of “Agnorev People’s Parliament” (APP), ratified

the secession of East Agnostica and voted unanimously to send a delegation headed by Mr.

Bien to enter into talks with Reverentia.

7. On 6th February 2013, the President of the Security Council expressed concern over

what he termed the “question of the continued territorial integrity of Agnostica,” and the

possibility that recent events might constitute “an unjustifiable and illegal interference in

Agnostican domestic affairs.” On 18th February 2013, five of the largest international

pharmaceutical manufacturers jointly announced that they were suspending purchases of

Marthite until “the legal status of East Agnostica – and of the Marthite itself – is conclusively

resolved.”

8. President Nuvallus announced on 22nd February 2013 that he and Mr. Bien had signed

an Integration Agreement that would make East Agnostica a semi-autonomous province of

Reverentia, with the APP as its provincial legislature. Prime Minister Moritz denounced the

annexation.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xvii

-Dispute Settlement-

9. Agnostica and Reverentia sent their Foreign Ministers to New York on 10th May

2013. Reverentia expressed willingness to submit the dispute over East Agnostica to the

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but Agnostica’s Foreign Minister insisted

that it would agree only if the Court were seized also of the “inextricably related” disputes

over the Marthite Convention.

The parties subsequently negotiated and concluded this Special Agreement.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xviii

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Reverentia’s support for the Referendum is not an act of aggression or intervention in the

domestic affairs of Agnostica but in support of the right to self-determination which is

recognized as a jus cogens norm. The territorial integrity of Agnostica is limited by the right

of self-determination of the Agnorevs and Agnostica failed to give effect to the Agnorev’s

right of self-determination and therefore obligated Reverentia to support the Referendum in

East Agnostica.

II. East Agnostica’s secession and its subsequent integration with Reverentia are consistent with

international law. Agnorevs were denied their right of internal self-determination and

therefore had to realize their right of self-determination externally in pursuance with

international covenants. Peoples suffering systematic oppression have a right to remedial

secession and Agnorevs had to invoke such a right as the last resort which is viewed as

neutral by International Law. East Agnostica established itself as a State by fulfilling all the

criteria of statehood as prescribed under the Montevideo Convention and exercises effective

sovereignty over its territory.

III. Agnostica has unilaterally terminated the Marthite Convention, 1938 with disregard to the

cultural and traditional rights of the users of Marthite. The recent commercial significance

attached to Marthite does not change the extent of obligations of Agnostica or Reverentia.

Agnostica’s invocation of the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances is invalid and

Agnostica failed to follow any procedural guidelines with regard to termination of treaty. The

Marthite Convention remained in force till 1 March 2013 and Agnostica has breached the

treaty by entering into an agreement with Baxter International during the subsistence of the

treaty.

-PRELIMINARIES-

xix

IV. Reverentia’s act of removal of software from the Marthite mining facilities is a valid counter

measure taken in response to Agnostica’s breach of the Marthite Convention. The counter

measure is intended to bring Agnostica in compliance to its treaty obligations and respect the

perpetuality of treaties in international law. The counter measure taken by Reverentia

commensurates with the test of proportionality and necessity as prescribed by the Draft

articles of the International Law Commission on State Responsibility, 2001.

-MERITS-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT- 1

PLEADINGS

I. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IN EAST AGNOSTICA IS CONSISTENT

WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Reverentia’s support for the Referendum is not an act of aggression or intervention in affairs

of Agnostica [A.]. The territorial integrity of Agnostica is limited by the right of self-

determination and Agnostica failed to exercise its territorial integrity in conformity with this

right [B.]. The failure of Agnostica in respecting the right of self-determination of the

Agnorevs obligated Reverentia to support the Referendum in East Agnostica [C.].

A. REVERENTIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION

OR INTERVENTION IN THE AFFAIRS OF AGNOSTICA.

1. Reverentia’s support for the referendum does not constitute an act of aggression.

Reverentia’s extension of support to the referendum is not an ‘act of aggression’ as it does

not involve the use of force or an armed attack1 in the territory of Agnostica. The UNGA Res.

on Aggression2 defines aggression as an invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of

the territory of another, and recognises any military occupation, resulting from such invasion

or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof

as illegal.

Reverentian support for the Referendum does not quantify the above definition. Reverentia

passed a Resolution supporting the right of self-determination of Agnorevs3 which cannot be

1 BROWNLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND USE OF FORCE BY STATES 361 (1963) [hereinafter‘BROWNLIE’]. 2 Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974) [hereinafter ‘Aggression’]. 3 Compromis, ¶ 35.

-MERITS-


termed as an ‘act of aggression’ as it did not advocate the use or threat of force but stated that

Reverentia would take all measures to ensure the realization of the right of self-

determination.4 The Troops of Reverentia were stationed within Reverentian borders with

express orders not to leave Reverentian territory.5

2. Reverentia refrained from any form of coercion aimed against the political

independence or territorial integrity of Agnostica.

Reverentia is obligated under Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter6 and customary international law

(hereinafter, C.I.L.) to not use force or threat of force in its support for the East Agnostican

Referendum. The Friendly Relations Declaration (hereinafter F.R.D.)7 obligates States to

refrain from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the

territorial integrity of any State’.8 Reverentia has acted in furtherance of these obligations.

This Court has opined9 that a “threat of force consists in an express or implied promise by a

government of a resort to force conditional on non-acceptance of certain demands of that

government. If such promise is without justification, the threat itself is illegal.”10

There is no express or implied intention to resort to force in the Reverentia Resolution in case

the self-determination of Agnorevs is not achieved.

4 Id. 5 Compromis, ¶ 37. 6 Charter of the United Nations, entered into force on 24th Oct 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119, art. 2, ¶4 [hereinafter U.N.C.]. 7 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) [hereinafter ‘F.R.D.’]. 8 Id., Preamble, ¶ 9. 9 Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8). 10 BROWNLIE, supra note 1, at 364.

-MERITS-


Judge Schwebel stated in the Nicaragua case, 11 that it is lawful for a foreign State to give to

a people struggling for self-determination moral, political and humanitarian assistance but it

is unlawful for a foreign State to intervene with force. Reverentia’s support was lawful as it

was a moral and humanitarian assistance in consistence with the principles of international

law without the use of force. This court has held that the existence of military maneuvers near

a State’s border does not constitute a use or threat of force.12 Reverentia’s troops were sent to

offer aid to any Agnorevs fleeing the violence in East Agnostica.13

B. THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA IS LIMITED BY THE RIGHT OF SELF-

DETERMINATION AND AGNOSTICA FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY IN

CONFORMITY WITH THIS RIGHT.

1. The right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of international law possessing an

erga-omnes character.

The I.C.C.P.R.14 gives all peoples the right to self-determination, to freely determine their

political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. I.C.C.P.R.,

obligates States to promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and respect it in

11 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 351 (June 27) (Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel) [hereinafter‘Nicaragua’]. 12 Id., at 118, ¶ 227. 13 Compromis, ¶ 37. 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on 16th December 1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407, art. 1, ¶ 1 [hereinafter ‘I.C.C.P.R.’].

-MERITS-


conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.15 The peoples’ right to

self-determination is an inalienable right of erga omnes character.16

Erga omnes are obligations owed to the international community as a whole.17 Thus, all

States have an obligation to promote the realisation of the right to self-determination.

Because of its fundamental importance, Judge Ammoun18, emphasized that the right to self-

determination is based on the ‘norm of jus cogens’19, derogation from which is not

permissible under any circumstance.20.

Reverentia, a party to the I.C.C.P.R.21 is obligated to respect the right of self-determination of

all peoples including Agnorevs. Reverentia’s support for the referendum was to promote the

realization of the right of self-determination.

15 Id., art. 1, ¶ 3. 16 East Timor (Port. v. Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 90, 102 (June 30) [hereinafter ‘East Timor’]; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2004 I.C.J. 136, 171-2 (July 9) [hereinafter ‘Legal Consequences’]. 17 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 32 (Feb. 5) [hereinafter ‘Barcelona Traction’]; BRIAN D LEPARD, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW 264 (2012). 18 Barcelona Traction, supra note 17. 19 Supporters of the view that the right of self-determination is part of jus cogens include: I. BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 513 (1991); D. RAIC, STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 218-219 (2002); BRUNNO SIMMA, CHARTER OF UNITED NATIONS, A COMMENTARY 316 (2012) [hereinafter ‘SIMMA’]; ANTONIO CASSESE, SELF DETERMINATION OF PEOPLE: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL 133-136 (1995) [hereinafter ‘CASSESE’]; James Crawford, The Rights of Peoples: Some Conclusions, RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, 166; H. Gros Espiell, Self-Determination and Jus Cogens, UN LAW/FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 167-73 (1978); U.K. and Argentina's Statements in the Context of the Falklands/Malvinas Dispute 53 B.Y.B.I.L. 366-379 (1982). 20 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, art. 53 [hereinafter ‘V.C.L.T.’]. 21 Compromis, ¶ 44.

-MERITS-


2. Agnostica failed to exercise its territorial integrity in conformity with self-determination.

Territorial integrity must be exercised in conformity with a State’s obligation under, inter

alia, the law of self-determination, the law concerning human rights and humanitarian law.22

In case of breach of jus cogens rules or erga omnes obligations, any constraints derived from

the principle of national sovereignty can be brushed aside.23 Agnostica failed to exercise its

territorial integrity by denying the right of internal self-determination to Agnorevs as it failed

to recognize the outcome of the referendum.24

C. THE FAILURE OF AGNOSTICA IN RESPECTING THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF

AGNOREVS OBLIGATED REVERENTIA TO SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM IN EAST

AGNOSTICA.

1. International law recognises a right to external self-determination of Agnorevs.

The F.R.D.,25 and the 1993 Vienna Declaration,26 implicitly recognises a right to remedial

secession.27 The flagrant discrimination of the internal self-determination of the Agnorevs on

the basis of their ethnicity by Agnostica has given Agnorevs a right to exercise external self-

determination which gives them a right to remedial secession.28

22 John Dugard and David Raic, Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession, in SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES, 103, 106 (2006) [hereinafter ‘Dugard and Raic’]. 23 Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-determination, in SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES 40 (2006) [hereinafter ‘Tomuschat’]. 24 Compromis, ¶ 38. 25 F.R.D., supra note 7, at ¶ 5(7). 26 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993) [hereinafter ‘Vienna Declaration’]. 27 F.R.D., supra note 7, at ¶ 5(7). 28 Id.

-MERITS-


2. Reverentia’s support to the referendum was in furtherance of the right of external self-

determination of Agnorevs.

The F.R.D.29 regarding the principle of self-determination was widely discussed in the

Special Committee on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and

Co-operation Among States.30 The instrument is primarily concerned with ‘Friendly

Relations and Co-operation Among States’31 and so it must be assumed that the negative

formulation in Paragraph 5(7) that the principle of self-determination shall not authorise or

encourage any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial

integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States” was intended to be addressed

to third States.32

It may be argued, therefore, a contrario that third States would be entitled to support a people

which attempts to secede even if such support would lead to the infringement of the territorial

integrity of the target State33 as long as the target State does not conduct itself with the right

of self-determination of the people concerned and such support is in accordance with the

other principles contained in the F.R.D.34 The permissibility of ‘action’ by third States which

may dismember or impair the territorial integrity of the parent State must be linked to the

justifiability of secession.35 This issue is indirectly dealt with in Paragraph 5(7) in the context

29 Id. 30 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 103. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 F.R.D., supra note 7, ¶ 1. 35 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 104.

-MERITS-


of the permissibility of ‘action’ by third States in those cases where the right to self

determination is seriously violated by the parent State. 36 Governmental actions in a given

State amounts to a ‘consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human

rights’,37 the international community is called upon to respond by taking remedial action in

favour of the human being under threat.38 The inference is to be drawn that third States would

be entitled to provide any kind of support short of military means.39

Agnostica failed to align itself with the right of self-determination as it denied Agnorevs

equal opportunities in social, economic and political matters.40 Such failure gave a right to

Reverentia to promote and realize their right to external self-determination which was the

only means available to Agnorevs after all other efforts to practice internal self-determination

were exhausted. This was realized when the Resolution proposing dissolution was defeated in

the Agnostican Parliament41. Reverentia supported the Referendum in compliance with the

other principles of F.R.D.42 Reverentia passed a Resolution,43 in support of the referendum

which does not qualify as use or threat of force, keeping with the F.R.D.44 It should be made

clear that the movement of Reverentia soldiers to the Reverentian borders with strict

36 Id. 37 ECOSOC Res. 1503(XLVIII), U.N. Doc. E/4832/Add.1, ¶ 1 (1970). 38 Tomuschat, supra note 23, at 39. 39 Id., at 44. 40 Compromis, ¶ 28. 41 Compromis, ¶ 33. 42 F.R.D., supra note 7. 43 Compromis, ¶ 35. 44 F.R.D., supra note 7, at ¶ 3.

-MERITS-


instructions not to leave the Reverentian territory was done to provide aid to Agnorevs

fleeing the violence in East Agnostica45 and to avoid violence spilling into Reverentia.46

Reverentia was merely exercising its sovereignty and respecting the prohibition on the threat

or use of force in international relations47 as mentioned in the UN Charter.48 Thus,

Reverentia’s support for the Referendum was consistent with international law.

45 Compromis, ¶ 37. 46 Id. 47 Id., at art. 2, ¶ 4. 48 U. N. C., supra note 6, art. 2, ¶ 1.

-MERITS-


II. EAST AGNOSTICA’S SECESSION FROM AGNOSTICA AND INTEGRATION INTO

REVERENTIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND IN ANY EVENT, THIS

COURT SHOULD NOT ORDER THE RETROCESSION OF EAST AGNOSTICA TO AGNOSTICA

AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF ITS POPULATION.

East Agnostica’s secession and its subsequent integration with Reverentia are lawful as

international law provides a right of external self-determination to Agnorevs [A.]. East

Agnostica’s independence has been achieved in consistence with international law which is

neutral towards secession [B.]. East Agnostica has established itself as a State and exercises

effective sovereignty over its territory. [C.].

A. AGNOREVS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.

1. The right of self-determination is available to peoples suffering systematic oppression.

Common Article 1 of the two International Human Rights Covenants49 provides that all

peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely determine

their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.50 It is

principle of C.I.L. as it has been declared in numerous international treaties,51 instruments,52

49 I.C.C.P.R., supra note 14, art.1; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force on Jan. 3, 1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 1 [hereinafter I.C.E.S.C.R.]. 50 I.C.C.P.R., supra note 14, art. 1, ¶ 2; I.C.E.S.C.R., supra note 49, art. 1, ¶ 2. 51 U.N.C., supra note 6, art. 1, ¶ 2, 55; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force on Oct. 21, 1986, 567 U.N.T.S. 435, art. 20 [hereinafter A.C.H.P.R.]. 52Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug. 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292, art. 1(a)(VIII) [hereinafter ‘H.F.A.’]; Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res. 50/6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/50/6 (1995); Vienna Declaration, supra note 26; F.R.D., supra note 7.

-MERITS-


and judicial opinions.53 The right of self-determination is available to “all peoples” under

systematic oppression “beyond the traditional confines of the historical process of

decolonization”.54 Subjection of a people to exploitation constitutes a violation of the

principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and is contrary to the U.N.C.55

Agnorevs being an oppressed people are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination.

Agnostica is violating its obligation56 to promote this right.

2. Agnorevs qualify as a ‘people’ under international law.

A group is considered a people if it shares the objective factors of a common historical

tradition, a racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, religious and

ideological affinities, territorial connection, and a common economic life and the subjective

factor of identifying themselves as a ‘people’ sharing the above objective characteristics,57 as

53 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16 (June 21) [hereinafter ‘Namibia’]; Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16); East Timor, supra note 16; Legal Consequences, supra note 16; Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, Comm No. 75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R, (2000) A.H.R.L.R. 72 (8th Annual Activity Report) [hereinafter ‘Katangese Peoples’]. 54 I.C.C.P.R., supra note 14, art.1, ¶ 1; I.C.E.S.C.R., supra note 49, art. 1, ¶ 1; H.F.A., supra note 52; Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, The Charter of for a New Europe, 31 I.L.M. (1991) 193; I. BROWNLIE AND G. GOODWIN-GILL, BASIC DOCUMENTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 866 (2006); European Community, The E.C. Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and the E.C. Declaration on Yugoslavia 62 B.Y.I.L. 559; Vienna Declaration, supra note 26; Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217, 285 (1998) (Can.) [hereinafter ‘Quebec’]; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22) (Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade) [hereinafter ‘Kosovo’]. (All these Instruments and cases contemplate a right of self-determination unrelated to decolonization.) 55 F.R.D., supra note 7, Preamble. 56 I.C.C.P.R., supra note 14, art. 2; U.N.C., supra note 6, art. 1, ¶ 2, 55. 57 UNESCO, Final Report and Recommendations, International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples, 22 Feb, 1990, U.N. Doc. SHS-89/CONF.602/7, 22 (1990).

-MERITS-


confirmed58 by the A.C.H.R. observing that self determination can be exercised by a people

sharing the above characteristics. The Commission has held that people of Katanga, South

Cameroon, and South Sudan constitute a ‘people’.59 Agnorevs are bound together by their

history and traditions, and have a distinct ethnicity and culture.60 In Separate Opinions61 in

the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, a similar definition of people was opined, recognising the

Albanians of Kosovo having a right to self-determination. In Quebec it was held that “people

may include only a portion of the population of an existing State.62 The Bengali people of

East Pakistan were recognised as having a right to self-determination.63 Agnorevs being only

a portion of the population of Agnostica constitute a distinct “people” in international law as

they are bound together by ethnicity and culture and have the consciousness of constituting

such a people.64

58 Katangese People’s, supra note 53; Kevin Mgwanga Gunme v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 266/2003, 2009 A.C.H.P.R., 26 Ann. Activity Rep. (2008-09) ¶ 170, (Mar. 27) [hereinafter ‘Kevin Mgwanga’]; Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v. Sudan, Comm. No. 279/03-296/05, 2009 A.C.H.P.R., 28 Ann. Activity Rep. (2009-10), ¶ 220 (May 27). 59 Id. 60 Compromis, ¶ 4. 61 Kosovo, supra note 54, Separate Opinion of Judge Yousaf, at 621, ¶ 9; Kosovo, supra note 54, Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade, at 523, ¶ 228. 62 Quebec, supra note 54, ¶ 123-124. 63 International Commission of Jurists, The Events in East Pakistan, 8 International Commission of Jurists Review 23, 70 (1972) [hereinafter ‘The Events in East Pakistan’]. 64 Id.

-MERITS-


3. Agnorevs have a right to external self-determination.

The recognized sources of international law65 establish that the right to self- determination of

a people is normally fulfilled internally through a people’s pursuit of its political, economic,

social and cultural development within the framework of an existing State.66

A right to external self-determination arises in exceptional cases, legitimising secession from

an independent State. 67 The flagrant discrimination of the internal self-determination of the

Agnorevs by Agnostica68 has given them a right to exercise external self-determination which

can be realised through the “establishment of a sovereign and independent State, or the free

association or integration with an independent State.”69

F.R.D.70 recognises a right to external self-determination and the possibility of remedial

secession71 in situations where a government practices systematic discrimination and is not

65 U.N.C., supra note 6 art. 1, ¶ 2; I.C.C.P.R., supra note 14, art. 1(2); I.C.E.S.C.R., supra note 49, art. 1(2); F.R.D., supra note 7, ¶ 5(1). 66 Quebec, supra note 55, ¶ 127. 67 Quebec, supra note 54; Katangese Peoples’, supra note 53; Thomas D. Musgrave, Self Determination and National Minorities, in OXFORD MONOGRAPHS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 76 (1997); A. BUCHANAN, JUSTICE, LEGITIMACY, AND SELF-DETERMINATION: MORAL FOUNDATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW, 357-359 (2007); L. BUCHHEIT, SECESSION: THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF DETERMINATION, 92-97 (1978) [hereinafter ‘BUCHHEIT’]; Thomas M. Franck, Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secede, in PEOPLE AND MINORITIES 13-14 (1993). 68 Compromis, ¶ 28. 69 F.R.D., supra note 7, ¶ 5(4); United Nations, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, 15 Aug, 1997, UN doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3, 13, ¶1-2 and 6 (1997). 70 Id., ¶ 5(7). 71 F.R.D., supra note 7, ¶ 5(4); K. Doehring, Self-Determination, in THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, A COMMENTARY 57 (2002); James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69 B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998); C. Tomuschat, Self- Determination in a Post-Colonial World, in MODERN LAW OF SELF DETERMINATION, 8-11 (1993).

-MERITS-


representative of its entire population.72 Systematic oppression ranging from denial of

participatory rights, to serious and systematic discrimination and other violations of human

rights of the members of one part of the population73 of a State give rise to a legitimate

secession legitimate.74

Agnostica has disrespected the right of self-determination by denying Agnorevs effective

guarantees, and the right to practice their culture. The MCA was a thinly veiled

discrimination against the Agnorevs denying them their cultural rights. Discriminatory

practices such as the federal judicial posts being ‘dominated’ by Agnostican lawyers,75

72 Tomushcat, supra note 23, at 38-42; CASSESE, supra note 19, at 118; F.L. Kirgis Jr., The Degrees of Self-Determination in the United Nations Era, 88 A.J.I.L. 304, 305-306 (1994); S.R. Chowdhary, The Status and Norms of Self-determination in Contemporary International Law, 24 ESSAYS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS IN HONOUR OF A.J.P. TOMMES 72, 80 (1977); SIMMA, supra note 10, at 97; BUCHHEIT, supra note 67, at 220-3; Y. Dinstein, Collective Human Rights of Peoples and Minorities, 25 INT’L. COMP. L.Q. 102, 108 (1976); H. HANNUM, AUTONOMY, SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION: THE ACCOMMODATION OF CONFLICTING RIGHTS 471 (1990); R. McCorquodale, Self-determination: A Human Rights Approach, 43, INT’L. COMP. L.Q. 241 (1994); A. Cristescu, The Right to Self-Determination, Historical and Current Development on the basis of United Nations Instruments, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev.1, 26, (1981); CRAWFORD, THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 119 (2006) [hereinafter ‘CRAWFORD’]. 73 Id. 74 Vienna Declaration supra note 26; H.F.A. supra note 52; Daniel Thurer and Thomas Burri, Secession, 9 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 55 (2012); Quebec, supra note 54; Katangese Peoples’, supra note 53; Kevin Mgwanga, supra note 58 ; Kosovo, supra note 54, Written Statement of United Kingdom, Apr. 17, 2009, ¶ 5.33, Written Statement of Finland, Apr. 16, 2009, 10 at ¶ 18, Written Statement of Denmark, Apr. 16, 2009, 14 at ¶ 2.7, Written Statement of Netherlands, Apr. 17, 2009, 13 at ¶3.21, Written Statement of Albania, Apr. 14, 2009, 79 at ¶ 43, Written Statement of Russia, Apr. 16, 2009, 34 at ¶ 88; Written Statement of U.S.A, Apr. 17, 2009, 39, Written Statements of Switzerland, Apr. 15, 2009, 26, Written Statement of Slovenia, Apr. 17, 2009, 3, Written Statement of Poland, Apr. 15, 2009, 26 at ¶ 6.7, Written Statement of Japan, Apr. 17, 2009, 4, Written Statements of Ireland, Apr. 17, 2009, 9 at ¶ 9, Written Statement of Germany, Apr. 15, 2009, 34 (All these states support the right of external determination of a people suffering human rights violations and systematic oppression). 75Compromis, ¶ 28.

-MERITS-


“complete absence’ of Agnorevs among senior officers of the Agnostican armed services, the

‘disproportionate’ allocation of government scholarships to ethnic Agnostican university

students76, the “unrelentingly negative” characterization of Agnorevs in West Agnostican

primary-school textbooks and the national media77 and ‘frequent characterization’ of

Agnorevs as wealthy villains in Agnostican cinema78 are evidence of the discrimination

against on the basis of their ethnicity in Agnostica.

Agnostica used military troops against its own citizens79 killing sixty demonstrators and

seriously injuring others and failed to ‘de-escalate’ police and military presence in East

Agnostica. These instances exhibit a violation of the Agnorevs’ right to internal self-

determination, forcing them to exercise the right of external self-determination.

B. EAST AGNOSTICA’S INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN CONSISTENCE WITH

INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH IS NEUTRAL TOWARDS SECESSION.

1. The secession of East Agnostica was accomplished in accordance with the principles of

the United Nations Charter and the right to self-determination.

The independence of the seceding entity is a matter of fact in international or national law.

The F.R.D.,80 the Quebec case81 and Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in part82 showcase

76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Compromis, ¶ 29. 80 F.R.D., supra note 7. 81 Quebec, supra note 54. 82 Kosovo, supra note 54.

-MERITS-


that unilateral secession is a political fact not regulated,83 held neutral84 or banned by

international law maintaining that the breaking away of a nation or ethnic group is neither

authorized nor prohibited by legal rules;85 it is simply regarded as a fact of life, outside the

realm of law, and to which law can attach legal consequences depending on the

circumstances of the case.86

The UN has directed States to not recognize secessionist entities whose secession has been

brought about by the unlawful use of force, the denial of self-determination, systematic racial

discrimination and the suppression of human rights.87 This is supported by this Court’s

Kosovo Advisory Opinion. 88

The Court’s observation is based on the practice developed with regard to Turkey’s forceful

creation of Northern Cyprus,89 declarations of independence of Southern Rhodesia90, four

83 P. DAILLIER, A. PELLET, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC, 526 (2002); T. Franck, Opinion directed at Question 2 of the Reference, Self Determination, in INTERNATIONAL LAW: QUEBEC AND LESSONS LEARNED 78 (2000); G. Abi Saab, Conclusion, in SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES 474 (2006). 84 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, 390; M. Higgins, International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes 230 RECUEIL DES COURS 165 (1991); CASSESE, supra note 19, at 123; O.C. Okafor, Entitlement, Process, and Legitimacy in the Emergent International Law of Secession, 9 INT’L. J. MINORITY & GROUP RIGHTS 41, 45-46 (2002). 85Quebec, supra note 54; Crawford, Response to Experts Reports of the Amicus Curiae, 159-160, Thomas M. Franck, Opinion Directed at Question 2 of the Reference, 78, Alain Pellet, Legal Opinion on Certain Questions of International Law Raised by the Reference, 122, Malcolm Shaw, Re: Order in Council PC 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996, 136. 86 CASSESE, supra note 19, at 340. 87 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 71. 88 Kosovo, supra note 54, at 81. 89 UNSC Res. 541 (1983), U.N. Doc. S/RES/541 (1983); UNSC Res. 550 (1984), U.N. Doc. S/RES/550 (1984).

-MERITS-


South African Homelands,91 Republica Srpska,92 and South Africa’s illegal presence in

Namibia.93 United Nations condemned Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait and Russia’s annexation

of Crimea in which the territorial illegality was not created by the unilateral character of

declarations of independence but by the fact that these entities intended to become States as a

result of illegal use of force or in pursuance of apartheid.

Such is not the case of East Agnostica since the secession is not in pursuance of apartheid or

in violation of the rule on prohibition of use of force. The referendum was an expression of

free will of the Agnorevs94 which is supplemented by the remarks of many international

observers who termed the referendum free of irregularities and the result fair and accurate95

in pursuance of their right to self determination which was supported by Reverentia in a

manner consistent with the UN Charter96. The secession and annexation of East Agnostica are

valid in fact and law and this Court is requested not to order the retrocession of East

Agnostica.

90 UNSC Res. 217(1965), U.N. Doc. S/RES/217 (1965); UNSC Res. 277(1970), U.N. Doc. S/RES/277 (1970); Question of Southern Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2151 (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2151 (1966); Question of Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2383 (XXIII), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2382 (1968); Question of Southern Rhodesia, UNGA Res. 2508 (XXIV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2508/ (1969). 91UNSC Res. 402 (1976), U.N. Doc. S/RES/402 (1976); UNSC Res. 407 (1977), U.N. Doc. S/RES/407 (1977); Situation in South Africa, UNGA Res. 34/93 (1979), U.N. Doc. A/RES/34/93 (1979). 92 UNSC Res. 787 (1992), U.N. Doc. S/RES/799 (1992). 93 Question of Namibia, UNGA Res. 2518 (XXIV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2518 (1969). 95 Compromis, ¶ 38.

-MERITS-


2. State practice and judicial opinions support a right to external self-determination of an

oppressed people.

State practice supports the right of a people, within a territory, not representing the population

of the territory as a whole to secede.97 The International Commission of Jurists, in its report

on Bangladesh's secession, stated that “if one of the constituent peoples of a State is denied

equal rights and is discriminated against, it is submitted that their full right of self-

determination will revive.”98 Bangladesh came into being when the Bengalis of Pakistan

seceded from Pakistan;99 Israel established itself as a State by secession from Palestine;100

Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia after a gruesome struggle.101 The South Sudanese people

seceded from Sudan in 2011.102 The Albanian people of Kosovo seceded from Serbia in

2008;103 and Abkhazian people and South Ossetian people seceded from Georgia in 2008.104

Opinio juris is established by the participation of the world community in the F.R.D.,105 the

97 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 143. 98 Events in East Pakistan, supra note 63, at 69. 99 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, 393 (Bangladesh proclaimed its independence on Mar. 26, 1971). 100 Id., at 432 (State of Israel was unilaterally declared on 14 May 1948). 101 UNSC Res. 828/1993, U.N. Doc. S/RES/828 (1993) (Eritrea became an independent state and was immediately admitted to the UN). 102 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 155 (South Sudan became an independent State on July 9, 2011). 103 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 159. (The democratically elected leaders of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on Feb. 17, 2008). 104 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 165 (Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence unilaterally in 1999 and 2005 respectively). 105 F.R.D., supra note 7.

-MERITS-


1993 Vienna Declaration,106 the Helsinki Final Act (hereinafter, H.F.A.)107 which advance a

right of external-self determination for a part of population of an independent State suffering

human rights violations and systematic oppression at the hands of the parent State. The

subjective belief of States in such a right is also showcased through the recognition of

Bangladesh, Eritrea, Kosovo, and South Sudan.108

External right of self-determination is available to a minority as a last resort when the parent

State lacks either the will enact and apply effective guarantees.109 In the Quebec Case, the

Court recognised the right of a people to secede unilaterally when denied their right to

internal self-determination stating that “where a definable group is denied meaningful access

to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development, the people in question

are entitled to right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability

to exert internally their right to self-determination as a last resort.”110 The right of external

self determination was also recognized in the Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire111 and

Kevin Mgwanga Gunme v. Cameroon112.

106 Vienna Declaration, supra note 26. 107 H.F.A., supra note 52. 108 Bangladesh was admitted to the UN in 1974; Eritrea was admitted to the UN in 1993; South Sudan was admitted to the UN in 2011; Kosovo has been recognized by 100 states as of January, 2015. 109 The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106; Quebec, supra note 54, ¶ 134. 110 Id. 111 Katangese Peoples’, supra note 53. 112 Kevin Mgwanga, supra note 58.

-MERITS-


Mr. Bien’s resolution to the Agnostican Parliament proposing the dissolution of the nation

was defeated by all delegates from West Agnostica.113 The plebiscite was condemned by the

PM and National Police was ordered to block the referendum,114 the result of which was not

recognized115 by Agnostica, extinguishing Agnorevs of all options but secession.

C. EAST AGNOSTICA HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS A STATE.

East Agnostica fulfils the criteria laid down in the Montevideo Convention to qualify as a

State.116 Art.1 of the Montevideo Convention provides that “[t]he State as a person of

international law should possess a permanent population, defined territory, a government and

the capacity to enter into relations with other States.”117 This is supported by Opinion No. 1

of the Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission118 which stated “a State is commonly defined as a

community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political

authority; that such a State is characterized by sovereignty.”119 The political existence of the

State is independent of recognition by other States.120 Thus, the existence of a State is a

113 Compromis, ¶ 33. 114 Id at 37. 115 Id at 38. 116 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on 26th Dec., 1933, 165 U.N.T.S. 19, art. 1 [hereinafter ‘Montevideo Convention’]. 117 Id. 118 Established in 1991, under the chairmanship of Mr. Badinter of France, to advise the European Community on legal problems arising from the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 119 Conference on Yugoslavia, 1991, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 1, 92 I.L.R. 162 (Nov. 29) [hereinafter ‘Opinion No. 1’] 120 Montevideo Convention, supra note 116, art. 3; Deutsche Continental Gas Gesellschaft v. Polish State, German-Polish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, 1929, 5 I.L.R. 11, 13 (Aug. 1)

-MERITS-


question of fact and not of law121.The law takes account of the new situation in case of

creation of a new State, despite its lawfulness,122 checking for effectiveness123 in the light of

the facts.124 Post referendum, East Agnostica established itself as a State with a permanent

population, defined territory, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations

with other States.125

1. East Agnostica Has a Permanent Population.

A State exercises territorial jurisdiction over its inhabitants and personal jurisdiction over its

nationals.126 The East Agnostican province was created as per the Agnostic Constitution127

and was a Provincial Parliament,128 governing East Agnostica. Post secession, since the same

government is at the helm, it can be assumed that the defined population of erstwhile

province of Agnostica continues.

[hereinafter ‘Gesellschaft’]; Cyprus v. Turkey, 1975 E.C.H.R., 18 E.C.H.R. YEARBOOK, 82, 112-116 (1975) (May 26); S. v. Banda and Others, Supreme Court of Bophuthatswana, 1989, 4 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS 519 (BG), 531-539 (1989) (Feb. 6). 121 Opinion No. 1, supra note 119; L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 209 (1955) [hereinafter ‘OPPENHEIM’]; CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 4; R. Erich, La naissance et la reconnaissance des Etats, 13 RECUEIL DES COURS 427, 442 (1926); G. Marston, Termination of Trusteeship, 18 INT’L. COMP. L.Q. 1, 3 (1969). 122 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 5. 123 OPPENHEIM, supra note 121; Quebec, supra note 54. 124 LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 91 (1947). 125 Montevideo Convention, supra note 116. 126 AKEHURST, AKEHURST'S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 75 (1997) [hereinafter ‘AKEHURST’]. 127 Compromis, ¶ 8. 128 Compromis, ¶ 39.

-MERITS-


2. East Agnostica constitutes a ‘State’ as it has a defined territory.

The State must consist of an effectively governed territory 129 which is defined by geography,

separated by borderlines. 130 Denmark and Greenland; France and Martinique, East and West

Pakistan before the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 are few such examples. The territory of

East Agnostica held provincial status before the secession under Constitution of Agnostica

and therefore, has a defined territory.131

In arguendo, the territory of a State need not be exactly affixed by definite frontiers132 and a

new State may exist despite claims to its territory.133 This Court has opined that there is no

such rule prescribing ‘fully delimited and defined’ land frontiers.134 Thus, sufficient

identification of core territory is enough for a State to exist.135

3. East Agnostica constitutes a ‘State’ as it has a government having effective control.

Effective control by a government136 over its territory and population is a necessary condition

of Statehood.137 Political and administrative organs capable of maintaining a legal order in

129 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 40. 130 AKEHURST, supra note 126, at 76. 131 Compromis, ¶ 8. 132 JORRI DUURSMA, FRAGMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MICRO-STATES 116 (1996). 133 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 48. 134 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Denmark, F.R.G. v. Netherlands), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 26, 32 (Feb. 20) ¶ 46; Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 6, 22, 26, ¶ ¶ 44, 52. 135 AKEHURST, supra note 126, at 76. 136 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 55. 137 AKEHURST, supra note 126, at 77.

-MERITS-


the State in question are required.138 The success of a unilateral secession depends on

effective control of a territory.139 An independent, peaceful referendum having been

conducted and subsequently ratified, showcases effective control of the government of East

Agnostica.140 The return of the military units stationed in East Agnostica to their bases in

West Agnostica further supports this contention.141

4. East Agnostica qualifies as ‘State’ as it has the capacity to engage in international

affairs and enter into treaties.

As long as a State performs the functions which independent States normally perform,

international law treats the State as independent.142 East Agnostica sent a delegation to

Reverentia to initiate talks with them regarding their territories.143 Both these functions

signify that the new State possesses the capacity to enter into relations with other States. This

is evidenced by the recognition granted by thirty States including two permanent members of

the Security Council.144

In any case, the political existence of the State is independent of recognition by the other

States.145 This can be taken to imply that the Statehood of an entity is independent of its

138 Dugard and Raic, supra note 22, at 48. 139 Quebec, supra note 54, at 106. 140 Compromis, ¶ 39. 141 Clarifications to the Compromis, ¶ 1. 142 AKEHURST, supra note 126, at 78. 143 Compromis, ¶ 39. 144 Clarifications to the Compromis, ¶ 7. 145 Montevideo Convention, supra note 116, art. 3.

-MERITS-


relations with other States.146 East Agnostica would still constitute a State, regardless of its

limited capacity to enter into relations with other States, based on the fulfilment of other

prime factors.

146 CRAWFORD, supra note 72, at 61.

-MERITS-


III. THE MARTHITE CONVENTION WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL 1 MARCH 2013, AND AGNOSTICA

BREACHED THAT CONVENTION.

The Marthite Convention was concluded in 1938 recognizing the significance of Marthite to

the traditions of medical practice147 of Reverentians.148 A treaty is concluded against the

background of all kinds of circumstances, which a State takes into account in consenting to

be bound by the treaty.149 Agnostica has unilaterally terminated the treaty without due

procedure.

A. AGNOSTICA’S UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THE MARTHITE CONVENTION IS

INVALID.

To give effect to changing economic considerations concerning Marthite and disregarding

cultural rights of the users of Marthite, Agnostica has terminated the Marthite Convention,

offering no negotiation or following substantive procedure for termination of a treaty.150

1) Agnostica’s unilateral termination cannot be justified according to the Doctrine of

Error.

A State may invoke an error in a treaty to invalidate its consent to be bound by the treaty, if

the error formed an essential basis of the consent of the State to be bound by the treaty and if

147 The Marthite Convention, entered into force on 14th April, 1938, Compromis (Annex), Preamble [hereinafter ‘Marthite Convention’]. 148 Compromis, ¶ 10. 149 SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 192 (1984) [hereinafter ‘SINCLAIR’]; CAHEIR, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERTO AGO 163 (1987) [hereinafter ‘CAHEIR’]. 150 V.C.L.T., supra note 20, art. 65.

-MERITS-


it relates to a fact which was assumed by that State to exist at the time when the treaty was

concluded.151.

The ‘error’ may lead to the nullity of the treaty if one speaks of an error de facto152 alleged by

the State to have existed at the moment the treaty was concluded and forming an essential

basis of its consent.153 However, this doctrine does not satisfy the conditions in the present

case.

The treaty was entered into out of respect for traditional Reverentian medicine, emphasising

the lack of commercial significance to Marthite154 which Agnostica claims was erroneously

accepted by both the parties. Although Marthite was virtually unknown outside the

Thanatosian plains,155 the treaty itself included provision for such commercial use up to

25%.156 This substantiates that commercial use of Marthite was envisaged and foreseen,

although its extent and possibility was unknown to the parties.

The erroneous assumption that Agnostica claims is indeed a pretext to terminate the treaty

unilaterally.

151 Id., art. 48(1). 152 OPPENHIEM, supra note 121, at 342; LORD MCNAIR, LAW OF TREATIES 405-8 (1961) [hereinafter ‘MCNAIR’]. 153 J.L. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS 256 (1955) [hereinafter ‘BRIERLY’]. 154 Marthite Convention, supra note 147, Preamble. 155 Compromis, ¶ 9. 156 Marthite Convention, supra note 147, art. 4(d) limits the sale of Marthite outside Reverentia and Agnostica except when supply yields the demand by 125% for tradition practitioners.

-MERITS-


2) Agnostica’s unilateral termination cannot be justified according to the Doctrine of

Fundamental Change of Circumstances.

The approach of the application of the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances is to

admit the existence of the doctrine but it severely restricts its scope.157

The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus rests upon the fact whether or not the fulfillment of a

treaty after occurrence of a change in the state of facts would be so injurious and

burdensome158 to at least one of the parties that such party has a right under the law or right

of necessity to terminate the treaty.159 International law regards this doctrine as justifying the

repudiation of excessively burdensome obligations160 and it lacks the proper legal

prescription for the very significant change of circumstances in relation to an international

agreement, if those cannot qualify as falling within the legal rubric of rebus sic stantibus.161

The expectations of parties have considerable value in State practice and the termination of a

treaty is not the only proper effect of invocation of a change of circumstances but, depending

upon the expectations of the parties, there can be suspension or limitation of performance.162

However, a party cannot unilaterally renounce treaty obligations163 unless there is explicit

157 Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 46 (Aug. 19) at 156 [hereinafter ‘Free Zones Case’]. 158 William W. Bishop, Jr., The Permanence of Treaties, 22 A.J.I.L. 89, 102 (1928). 159 Id.; WILLIAMS, ASPECTS OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 94 (1939). 160 SINCLAIR, supra note 149 at 192-6; CAHEIR, supra note 149, 168. 161 A. E. Boyle, The G/N Case: New Law in Old Bottles, Symposium: The Case Concerning the G/N Project, 8 Y.B.I.E.L. 13 (1997). 162 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 429 (1943) [hereinafter ‘HACKWORTH’]. 163 Sir Humphrey Waldock, Second Report on Law of Treaties, Y.I.L.C 84 (1963).

-MERITS-


provision for unilateral termination or an express consent of the other parties concerned164

and a change of circumstances may be invoked even if it was not totally unforeseeable, the

parties may be aware that there is a possibility of change.

The effect of change of circumstances can be related to the specific expectations of the

parties as implied by their knowledge of the legislative basis of the agreement.165

In Free Zones,166 the right to invoke the clause as a ground for the extinction of treaties was

recognised, but Russia's claim to unilaterally to denounce a treaty was rejected.167 The effect

of the change is radically to transform the scope of obligations still to be performed under the

treaty.168

I.LC’s definition of the fundamental change of circumstances169 contains a series of limiting

conditions. a) The change must be of circumstances existing at the time of the conclusion of

the treaty; b) it must be a fundamental one; c) it must also be one not foreseen by the parties;

d) the existence of those circumstances must have constituted an essential basis of the

consent; and, e) the effect of the change must be radically to transform the extent of

obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

Agnostica does not fulfil any of those conditions as the object of the treaty, which is regard

for traditional Reverentian medicine, has not changed. Those circumstances exist as it did in

164 HACKWORTH, supra note 162. 165 BRIERLY, supra note 153; CHESNCY HILL, THE DOCTRINE OF REBUS SIC STANTIBUS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, (1934). 166 Free Zones Case, supra note 157. 167 L.C. GREEN, INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH THE CASES, 764 (1959). 168 Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N 86 (1966).

169 Id.

-MERITS-


1938 and in no way radically transform Agnostica’s obligations. Agnostica’s obligations to

Reverentia under the Marthite Convention remain intact.

The Marthite Convention makes provision for a scenario wherein other uses of Marthite can

be catered to along with its traditional uses.170 Agnostica cannot claim that commercial

significance is an unforeseen condition and in any case, the scope and extent of Agnostica’s

obligations remain exactly the same.

When it can be established that the treaty would have been concluded even under the changed

circumstances, there can be no case of invoking the clause.171

The I.C.J in Fisheries,172 noted when Iceland claimed owing to changed circumstances the

Notes concerning fishery limits exchanged in 1961 are no longer applicable, not only has the

jurisdictional obligation not been radically transformed in its extent; it has remained precisely

what it was in 1961, akin to the present instance.

In Gabčĭkovo,173 the Court did not accept that argument of Hungary that individually or

collectively, the effect of changed circumstances would radically transform the extent of

obligations to be performed. The changes must be completely unforeseen and not expected by

the parties. In pertinence, the Court in Fisheries Case said that development of new scientific

advancements is not unforeseeable while dismissing the claim of Iceland.174 Therefore, it can

170 Marthite Convention, supra note 147, art. 4, ¶ d. 171 Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 140 (1963). 172 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.) 1951 I.C.J. 117, 132 (Jan. 18). [hereinafter ‘Fisheries Case’]. 173 Gabčĭkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9) [hereinafter ‘Gabcikovo’]. 174 S.A. Tiewul, The Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases (1973) and the Ghost of rebus sic stantibus, 6 N.Y.U. J.Int’l. L. Pol’y 554-556 (1973).

-MERITS-


be inferred that discovery of new properties of Marthite cannot be completely unforeseen and

in any case, do not transform Agnostica’s obligations.

B. AGNOSTICA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS BY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL.

1. Agnostica breached its obligations under the V.C.L.T.

Agnostica immediately leased to Baxter International all Marthite mining facilities after

unlawfully denouncing the Marthite Convention, in spite of Reverentia’s refusal to terminate

the treaty. V.C.L.T. lays down procedural safeguards with regard to unilateral termination.

Article 56(2) in relation to denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no

provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal, says in relevant part that a party

shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a

treaty. The article is thus confined to two clear and simple rules. A treaty may be terminated

or a party may terminate its own participation in a treaty by agreement in two ways: (a) in

conformity with the treaty, and (b) at any time by consent of all the parties.175 Agnostica is

clearly in breach of the above obligation and hence, the unilateral termination should be

deemed unlawful.

Article 65 lays down the procedure with respect to invalidity, termination of the operation of

the treaty. The first part imposes a duty to notify the opposite party of the claims of the party

terminating the treaty and reasons thereof.

The procedural guidelines of V.C.L.T are fundamental to application of the provisions of the

present part dealing with the invalidity, termination or suspension of the operation of

175 O DÖRR AND K SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A COMMENTARY 544 (2012) [hereinafter ‘O DÖRR’].

-MERITS-


treaties.176 Some of the grounds upon which treaties may be terminated or suspended under

those sections, if allowed to be arbitrarily asserted in face of objection from the other party,

would involve real dangers for the security of treaties.177 These dangers were, they felt,

particularly serious in regard to claims to denounce or withdraw from a treaty by reason of an

alleged breach by the other party or by reason of a fundamental change of circumstances.178

2. Agnostica breached its obligations under the Marthite Convention.

Article 4 of the Marthite Convention clearly says that, the Reverentian Marthite Trust

(R.M.T.), a State-owned Reverentian corporation shall thereupon become the exclusive

owner of Marthite.179 Agnostica, in spite of Reverentia’s repeated refusal to denounce the

Marthite Convention unlawfully terminated the treaty and leased all mining rights belonging

to R.M.T to Baxter International. This act is clearly against the object and purpose of the

treaty and in clear breach of Article 4 of the Marthite Convention.

176 John Fischer Williams, The Permanence of Treaties Source, 22 A.J.I.L. 1, 89 (1978). 177 O DÖRR, supra note 175; J.B SCOTT, THE HAGUE COURT REPORTS 317-318 (1916). 178 Id. 179 Marthite Convention, supra note 147, Preamble.

-MERITS-


IV. REVERENTIA’S REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE IN THE MARTHITE EXTRACTION

FACILITIES WAS CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Reverentia’s removal of the software in the Marthite extraction facilities was consistent with

international law. It is a proportional and lawful counter measure in international law.

Judicial decisions, state practice and doctrine confirm the proposition that countermeasures

meeting certain substantive and procedural conditions may be legitimate.180 As provided

under Article 22 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility181, the wrongfulness of an act of

a State not in conformity with an international obligation to another State is precluded if and

to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter State in

accordance with Chapter 2 of part 3.182

Agnostica’s unlawful claim for unilateral termination of the Marthite Convention is a

violation of international law. Such a violation gives Reverentia the right to take a lawful

countermeasure as per the law of counter measures. Reverentia’s act of removal of software

is a way of self help in response to a breach as mandated by the law on countermeasures.183

180 E. ZOLLER, PEACETIME UNILATERAL REMEDIES: AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTERMEASURES 179–189 (1984); O. Y. ELAGAB, THE LEGALITY OF NON-FORCIBLE COUNTER-MEASURES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 227–241 (1988); L.-A. SICILIANOS, LES REACTIONS DECENTRALISEES A L’ILLICITE: DES CONTRE-MESURES A LA LEGITIME DEFENSE 501–525 (1990); D. ALLAND, JUSTICE PRIVEE ET ORDRE JURIDIQUE INTERNATIONAL: ETUDE THEORIQUE DES CONTRE-MESURES EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC (1994). 181I.L.C. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, GA U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001), art.1 [hereinafter ‘A.R.S.I.W.A.’]. 182R. Ago, Le délit international, 68 RECUEIL DES COURS 415 (1947); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27); Case Concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 (Fr. v. U.S.A.) 1978, 18 R.I.A.A. 416 [hereinafter ‘Air Service Agreement’]. 183 E. DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF PRINCIPLES, OR THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF NATURE 342 (1844).

-MERITS-


In the Gabicikovo Case,184 I.C.J. clearly accepted that countermeasures might justify

otherwise unlawful conduct taken in ‘response to a previous international wrongful act’ of

another State and directed against that State,’185 provided certain conditions are met. Similar

recognition of the legitimacy of measures of this kind in certain cases can be found in arbitral

decisions, in particular the Naulilaa186, the Polish Colonies case 1949187, Cysne (1928)188 and

Air Service Agreement.189

Also, there is no requirement that States taking countermeasures should be limited to

suspension of performance of the same or a closely related obligation.190 However, the

requirement of proportionality and necessity are to be noted.191

Reverentia’s actions fulfil the requirement of legal countermeasures as given in the I.L.C

articles.192

Article 49 lists prerequisites which must be fulfilled by the State which is taking the

countermeasure.

184 Gabčĭkovo, supra note 173. 185 Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N 2 (2001), ¶ 77. 186 Naulilaa Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1025. 187 Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory case 1932 P.C.I.J. 3 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4). 188 Cysne Case (Port. v. Germ.) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1052. 189 Air Services Agreement, supra note 182. 190 William Riphagen, The Sixth Report of the Special Rapporteur on State responsibility, Art. 8 of Part Two of the Draft Articles, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N 10 (1985) Document A/ CN.4/389. 191 A. R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, arts. 49, 51, 52. 192 Id.

-MERITS-


a. It must be taken in response to a previous international wrongful act of another State

and must be directed against that State in order to induce that State to comply with its

obligations.193

This requirement has been fulfilled by Reverentia as the impugned order was issued

after Agnostica’s unilateral termination of the Marthite Convention despite

Reverentia’s persistent objections.194 Agnostica did not adhere to any procedural

requirements that are necessitated by the V.C.L.T.195

b. Secondly, the countermeasure should be limited to the non-performance196 for the

time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the

responsible State.197

This condition has also been satisfied by Reverentia as removal of software and

personnel is temporary and with the resources Reverentia processes, it could be

restored any intended time. Furthermore, Agnostica claimed that they can easily

replace the experts that Reverentia has withdrawn. 198

c. Thirdly, a countermeasure shall be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of

performance of the obligation in question.199

193 Id., at art. 49(1). 194 Compromis, ¶ 15. (President Nuvallus clearly stated that Reverentia sees no reason to end The Marthite Convention. Moreover, he rejected the premise of Agnostica’s proposal: it is Agnostica’s economic interests that have changed, not the properties of Marthite.”) 195 V.C.L.T., supra note 20, art.67. 196 Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Fourth Report On State Responsibility, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N. 1 (1992) Document A/CN/4/444. 197 A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, art. 49(2). 198 Compromis, ¶ 18. 199 A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, art. 49(3).

-MERITS-


The impugned order involving removal of software is only temporary in nature and

Reverentia can ensure operation of RMT. Thus this requirement is also being fulfilled

by Reverentia in taking a lawful countermeasure against the breach of international

obligations by Agnostica. Reverentia’s act of removal of software, as a

countermeasure are intended as instrumental—and it is taken with a view to procuring

cessation of and reparation for the internationally wrongful act of Agnostica.

Reverentia has the technology to run the Marthite facilities and the countermeasure was

intended to be enforced only till such time as Agnostica respects its treaty obligations.

President’s order clearly signifies this aspect.200

The removal of software was preceded by a demand by the injured Reverentian State that the

Agnostica comply with its obligations201 and was accompanied by an offer to negotiate202 as

required.203

Countermeasures involve conduct taken in derogation from a subsisting treaty obligation but

justified as a necessary and proportionate response to an internationally wrongful act of the

State against which they are taken.204 They are essentially temporary measures, taken to

achieve a specified end, whose justification terminates once the end is achieved.205

200 Compromis, ¶ 17. 201 A.R.S.I.W.A, supra note 181, Part II. 202 Compromis, ¶ 17. 203 A.R.S.I.W.A, supra note 181, art. 55, ¶ 2. 204Cannizzaro, Enzo, The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, E.J.I.L 889 (2001). 205 William Riphagen, The Sixth Report of the Special Rapporteur on State responsibility, Art. 8 of Part Two of the Draft Articles, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N. 10 (1985) Document A/ CN.4/389.

-MERITS-


Agnostica has alleged that Reverentia’s act of removal of software has crippled Marthite

mining and distribution disproportionately but the basic objective of the countermeasure to

apply political and economic pressure upon the governing elite of a country to persuade them

to conform to international law is sanctioned by law.206

The WTO in its 2005 report Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks 207, noted considered that the

phrase “to secure compliance” in article XX(d) was to be interpreted as meaning “to enforce

compliance.”208

In the Air Service Agreement case209, the issue of proportionality was examined in some

detail. In that case there was no exact equivalence between France’s refusal to allow a change

of gauge in London on flights from the west coast of the United States and the United States’

countermeasure which suspended Air France flights to Los Angeles altogether. The tribunal

nonetheless held the United States measures to be in conformity with the principle of

proportionality because they “do not appear to be clearly disproportionate when compared to

those taken by France”.

Similarly, the unilateral termination of the Marthite Convention and Agnostica’s immediate

deal with Baxter clearly threatened Reverentia’s interests in the mining and use of Marthite

206General Comment 8, The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1997/8 (1997). 207 Appellate Body Report, Mexico–Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006: I, (Mar. 24, 2006). 208Id. (The panel noted that Mexico’s invocation of article XX(d) of GATT 1994 as a justification for the measures at issue by invoking the articles finally adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001, which it considered a codification of C.I.L. on the conditions imposed on countermeasures). 209 Air Service Agreement, supra note 182.

-MERITS-


and hence Reverentia is justified in taking a serious measure in order to ensure compliance by

Agnostica.

Agnostica is liable to make reparations for having violated international law and having

caused an internationally wrongful act by breaching the Marthite Convention as provided

under the I.L.C., Articles.210 Reparation, as a principle of international law, has been

established by international practice and has been accepted as an appropriate remedy by

various jurisdictions as C.I.L.211. The State of Agnostica is obligated for Compensation212 for

the damage caused to Reverentia by the pre-mature and wrongful termination of the Marthite

Convention by Agnostica which in fact remained in effect till March 1, 2013. Agnostica is

also obligated for Satisfaction213 in the form of an acknowledgment of the breach, and an

expression of a formal apology for the internationally wrongful act it has caused.

210 A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, art. 31. 211Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v. Poland) 1927 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A) No. 9 (Sept. 13); Case of Pulp Mills on River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr. 20); United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16); M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) 1988 I.T.L.O.S. Reports 24 (March 11); CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 (25 Sep 2007); Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (24 July 2008). 212 A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, art. 36. 213 A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 181, art. 37.

-MERITS-


CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the State of Reverentia, Respondent, respectfully requests the

Court to adjudge and declare that:

I. Reverentia’s support for the referendum in East Agnostica is consistent with

international law;

II. East Agnostica’s secession from Agnostica and integration into Reverentia are

consistent with international law, and in any event, this Court should not order the

retrocession of East Agnostica to Agnostica against the expressed will of its

population;

III. The Marthite Convention was in effect until 1 March 2013, and Agnostica breached

that Convention; and

IV. Reverentia’s removal of the software in the Marthite extraction facilities was

consistent with international law.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

X

Agents for the Respondent

Documents

T C 669R THE 2015 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITIONmoot.in/moot1/case_documents/17/R2.pdf · -memorial for the respondent- team code: 669r the 2015 philip